If they were more similar to us in the West we might seem less the enemy. An obvious difference is the manner in which Islamic women are treated in their societies. If their women did not wear burqas and were not restricted in public but wore western clothing and moved freely in public without restriction Islamism would seem more like a Western Religion or practice.

I believe that the wearing of the burqas and the restrictions placed on Islamic women is not meant to "respect the woman" as it is often stated by supposed authorities in their countries who are of course male, but are in fact means of self protection against rape, a crime very difficult to prosecute for many reasons even here in the West, but more so I believe in Islamic countries which require the absurd evidence of four witnesses and is a crime which is reported to occur at rates which are much greater then here in the West. The "respect" therefore which the gentlemen profess for women is in my opinion a means of protecting them from themselves.

If their systems of justice would adopt the legal standards of the West including modern DNA testing to affect prosecution and punishment the aforementioned burqas and restrictions might no longer be needed for protection as prosecution would hopefully be swift, certain and severe, hopefully more so then it is here in the West. Perhaps a way to affect such an influence is to inform any women's rights organizations in their countries to demand same and perhaps also Internet and wearable audio and video recording technology which current technology makes possible at little cost. Perhaps we should adopt same as the rates of conviction in the USA are shamefully low.

Can you imagine how difficult it is to manage a terrorist organization? No one involved can operate in the light of day, and yet huge sums of money must be gathered and spent for huge caches of arms and ammunition, travel and lodging, and training and recruitment. By comparison, most small businesses in the United States fail even though the businesses have the advantage of perfect legality and efficient, public operation. How is it possible for terrorist organizations to support themselves financially and to be successfully managed amidst war, violent opposition, and secrecy?

The simple answer is that it is not possible without help from otherwise legitimate institutions.

Only legitimate institutions have sufficient access to huge caches of weapons, ammunition, real estate, food, expertise, banking facilities, and cash. For example, drug cartels could not survive without help from inside the institutions that should be aligned against them. That help might amount to only be a few well-placed persons in government or banking, etc., but it may require the help of the entire institution if the criminal organization is very large. We may even find that whole States are needed to enable extremely widespread, global organizations that cannot otherwise conduct business in the light of day.

It's becoming apparent, for example, that we Americans are supplying and funding insurgents in Syria. We may be doing it in the shadows through our C.I.A., or we may be doing it through proxy governments like Turkey. Syrian rebels are using Turkey as a safe zone (the recent shooting down of a Syrian helicopter in Turkey doesn't make any sense unless that helicopter was chasing Syrian insurgents on Turkish soil).

It is also becoming obvious that the insurgents that we support are aligned against us, but that they temporarily serve our interests.

Taking head wraps off the babes, burning bras, and giving hotties the right to vote is not going to cure Islamic terrorism. We've got all that here, and we support terrorism whenever it suits us. State sponsored and institution supported terrorism is the problem, not head wraps, etc.

[quote="DearthVerbose"]If they were more similar to us in the West we might seem less the enemy.

Yes, that is a very good observation, but your solution is actually the problem. They don't want to become like the 'west'. That is exactly their complaint. They (the extremists) do not want Western culture changing their culture. Many in the Arabic countries are not extremists and are happy to take on new ways, especially if they are easier, more convenient, more fun or they, like you might see them as morally better. But the extremists would prefer it if they didn't. It could be they are cruel sadistic tyrants or it could be they see values in their ways of doing things that you and the moderates in their country do not.

Asking another culture to change to be more like yours is pretty much how the colonialists have treated indigenous peoples all over the world, and it rarely ends well.

It could likewise be argued that if the West became more Islamic in our criminal punishments, we could benefit greatly. Say what you like about the severity of their laws, but theft is almost unheard of in the middle east. The knowledge that your left hand will be cut off at the wrist if you are caught is one hell of a deterrent.

From my perspective, each culture must develop along it's own lines. "When in Rome" is not just a western sentiment, it is also taught in the Qua'ran, by the prophet Mohammed. When applied wisely, it is an effective deterrent of all kinds of conflict, if practiced mutually. The opposite, forcing one cultures values onto another, is a formula for conflict. So, asking the middle east to be like us, or us to be more like the middle east simply isn't a practical way to weaken Islamic terrorism. (A misnomer, by the way.)

The true cause for terrorism is found reflected in the demands of the terrorists themselves, Most terrorist organizations that originate in the middle east typically ask for a few common items: the release of comrades of one kind or another, an end to the U.S. interfering in middle eastern matters, and a cessation to the sending of supplies and soldiers to Israel.

Their causes are political, not religious. They rant on about Allah to try and garner support in the middle east, and possibly to make the atrocities they commit slightly more palitable. But their causes are political, not religous.

The solution is, likewise, political: Stop interfering in matters in the middle east. We no longer need the oil that we used to from the region. With the development of fraking technology, America is gearing up to begin exporting natural gas within the next two years, and oil inside the next 20.

If we make it abundantly and publicly clear, that we are DONE meddling in the middle east, our risk profile for terrorism would drop in direct proportion to how well the world believes such a move.

The cause for terrorism is not complicated. It's simple. If, as in the film "Red Dawn", America became occupied, you and I would expect there to be a number of patriots that would resist such occupation. Our opponents would call them terrorists. The cause is the same, with only the roles reversed in the middle east.

America has a track record of meddling in middle eastern affairs in every way conceivable, for well over 60 years, since the end of world war two. Not surprisingly, there are patriots from the region that are willing to do nearly anything to bring such meddling to an end.

If we really want terrorism to stop, America needs to put it's military arms in it's pockets, like a two year old in a china shop, and stop messing with that region of the world.

Well, simply find the root cause. Determine where exactly the firearms came from then confiscate all of those. It all started with the root cause of the issue in any case. It doesn't need to have a more deadly attack to completely succeed in this battle. ทางเข้า ruby888